For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Saturday, 15 August 2015

Your wish is my command

As you may remember, I recently invited requests to review specific Textusa posts, in the absence of her regular nonsense each Friday.I received a request to review this post which dates from May 2014, so here it is.I am however going to add a disclaimer on this occasion.I am repeating Textusa's words so I can critique her work. In this post and others she levels very serious, completely unproven allegations against some of the group. Where these are referenced I wish to make it clear that I neither share nor endorse her views.Also, at the time she was still going through what I call her Jeanmonroe phase, highlighting every other word for no fucking reason, so apologies for that.Enjoy.

Paedo v Nepio

Listen up, Teddy. I shall be using some very big words in this post, so just nod and stroke your chin, okay?

BLUF: If Maddie's death had anything to do with paedophilia then Maddie would have to have been a victim of a nepiophile. In turn, nepiophilia is absolutely incompatible with any sort of cover-up.

BLUF? What is this supposed to represent? Presumably you doesn't mean 'Bluff' as this makes no sense, so we'll have to assume it's another of your daft acronyms.Anyhoo, here is the post that got the crazy one so lit up on this particular occasion - not that it takes much, given that she is about as stable as a drunken man balancing on a three-legged table whilst being tickled under the armpits by a scantily-clad cheerleader.

Textusa,I don’t subscribe your swinging theory. It makes sense, it’s possible and I agree it would warrant acover-up. I happen to think there’s something greater to cover-up than swinging: paedophilia.You have called it a Stink Bomb and I’m curious about your explanations why you think that.I don’t think it’s a Stink Bomb at all and think it’s the big secret behind the cover-up.You point the finger at Payne in having to do with Maddie’s death (I recall you being the first to do that in Joana’s) but have minimised all possibility of all this being the lid being kept on a a paedo crimecommitted by Payne.He was identified by Yvonne Martin as paedo, or involved in paedo processes in UK. He was very rude to her.The Gaspars identify clearly paedo behaviours in his conversation with Gerry when talking aboutMaddie.Gerry has an empty CATS files.He bathed other people’s little children during the holiday where the Gaspars were present. He bathed Gaspars’ daughter, for example.He was the last person to see Maddie alive and describes the situation in very strange terms of white angels and all so peaceful.There are also other things that make me thing that this is all about paedophilia:He is the one that suggests and organises the holiday and he is the one that says who stays in what apartmentHe is the one that doesn’t need to check his children because he has a baby monitor that works great distances and because of this is the only male of the group who doesn’t leave the dinner table.He is the one who filmed that moment with Gerry swearing in front of all including children on anairport bus and I think he was the one who uploaded the video on YouTube.He was the one that was heard in the rogatory statementsafter the Portuguese cops had left the UK.All others were heard when they were there. Also I think he says that the right forum is not to be there answering the rogatory questions.I think all this points much more to paedophilia than to swinging. So why call it a Stink Bomb like you have?”

Got that?So this was the mad old bat's reply:

Dear Anon,

Thank you for your comment. Paedophilia is a very sensitive issue to talk about.

Seriously, Textusa, can't we get you on Mastermind?Name? Textusa MadpersonChosen specialist subject? The fucking obvious

Not only due to the sick characteristics of this horrific pathology in terms of human behaviour but also to explain how very effective it is unfortunately a way to distract, as we will try to show.

Good luck, Babelfish. We're rooting for you

We think we both share the certainty that there’s a Very High-Level Cover-Up (VHLCU) concerning the circumstances surrounding Maddie’s death.

''I said a hip hop,Hippie to the hippie,The hip, hip a hop, and you don't stop, a rock it...........''

For the uninitiated, this is a cover up involving the big guns. Youknow, like the Pope. So a cover up with big shiny knobs on.

Where we think we differ is in what we perceive to be the “big secret” that justifies this VHLCU.

Ah yes. The BIG secret

You seem think that all this is due to Maddie may having been the victim of a paedophile who you suspect was David Payne.

From your words, you also seem to suspect the direct or indirect consent on the part of the victim’s father, Gerry McCann, in the physical contact that would have happened between Payne and Maddiewhich resulted in her death.

Just writing these words sends chills down one’s spine but one mustn’t avoid any hypothesis, however gruesome it may be, in the quest for the truth.

No of course not, god forbid you should forget to mention any dingbat idea that pops into your head

Reason must guide all of us and not personal moral standards or sensitivity of stomach.

Reason? You??

We, on the other hand believe that the VHCLU was (and is) all about hiding the swinging activities and theparticipants present in PdL at the time Maddie died in the result of an unfortunate, although violent,accident.

Doesn't matter if you believe it. You're off your head

That accident happened in the sequence of David Payne and Kate McCann being engaged, or in attempted engagement, in some sort of ADULT sexual intimacy.

Something you have invented in its entirety, based on no evidence whatsoever, described in worryingly graphic detail which frankly gives more insight into your personality than is probably healthy

This accident could have been the snowballing of a reaction of having been unexpectedly interruptedby Maddie because of only having closed the bedroom door without locking it or simply because of Kate'spossible resistance to Payne's inopportune advances having developed into a heated discussionbetween them and in which Maddie unfortunately got involved.

So having invented a scenario placing them in flagrante, you have now elaborated upon your fantasy by having them row about it? I must say, Textusa, you must go to some very strange swingers parties......

In either scenario the context is sexual. A man being, or wanting to be, intimate with another man's wifewith his knowledge and consent. A context of swinging.

Okay - so for about the eight billionth time, where is your evidence for any of this? And please don't come back with some distilled shite about an adult pool or Mrs Fenn's chillblains, that simply won't cut it.

In our opinion, no plausible explanation could be given to the lesions that Maddie’s body certainly presented as a domestic accident. An aggression, even if not intended to be fatal is an aggression and leaves its marks.

Whoa!Lesions on the what now?!So now you are imagining wounds on the child as a result of the imaginary ''accident''? You know, that's pretty creepy. You imagine a scenario, you invent the dialogue, you create 'lesions' - this is not CSI, Textusa. You are not a guest writer, drafted in to create a storyline.

No plausible explanation, as was proved, could be given to explain David’s presence in the apartment at that time with Gerry absent.

''As was proved''? By who - you? Tex, you could barely prove your own name with your birth certificate superglued to your head

As David and Kate had indeed, in our opinion, been engaged in some sort of sexual activity, consumatedor not, with each other there was the immediate perception that this consensual behaviour could present a risk for rest of the “swinging community” present in PdL in being outed and have their lewd behaviour exposed with the serious repercussions to their reputations, careers and personal lives that would mean.

Okay, let's examine those statements for a moment.The key words there are these

''In our opinion"

An opinion may be either informed - ie based on the available evidence, data, previous experience etc. or uninformed.

A Textusa opinion drops out of a Christmas cracker

The sexual nature of Payne’s presence in the McCann’s apartment had to be hidden to hide the swinging, and to hide the reason of Payne’s presence there, Maddie’s death had to be hidden.

So let's make this clearThe claim that swinging occurred is simply your opinion. Despite your protestations and nonsense about little old ladies and swimming pools, it is not based on any evidenceThe claim that David Payne was there for the purpose you propose is simply an invented scenarioThe claim that Maddie said or did as you propose, resulting in the events you claim, is again simply an invented scenario, which says more about you than anyone else. Frankly, it's disturbing that you have these thoughts.So any further claims that these invented events had to be covered up are also, by definition, invented.

You believe in paedophilia as the reason for Maddie’s death and for the cover-up, we believe in an unfortunate accident as the cause of her death and in swinging as the cause of the cover-up.

Your response here to the anonymous poster is interesting, not least because it displays the extent of your ignorance.You speak of an ''unfortunate accident''. Yet what you described was no accident, but the unforseen and unintended result of a serious assault. And that, dear, is homicide.So what you are actually suggesting is that a crime of Homicide was covered up to hide an act of consensual sexual activity between two adults. In fact, one could go even further. In your scenario, a parent covered up the violent death of their own child at the hands of a third party after things got nasty between the two adults.You even suggest that Kate was not a willing participant, and that Payne sought and obtained Gerry McCann's consent. I find it very worrying that you seem to believe that a woman's consent to sexual activity lies with her husband! What you describe isn't swinging - it's sexual exploitation at best and rape at worst.

Then you say that this ''could present a risk for rest of the “swinging community” present in PdL in being outed andhave their lewd behaviour exposed with the serious repercussions to their reputations, careers and personal lives that would mean.''I find this a totally and utterly bizarre point of viewYou claim that this was a group of people - not just the T9, but all the guests - who actively and knowingly sought out a swinger's holiday at a swinger's resort, yet who shit themselves lavishly at the thought of anyone discovering this. That means that regardless of Madeleine they were always at risk of exposure, you do follow that, don't you? If it was a swinger's resort they were putting themselves at the risk of exposure even by being there. This is why the whole idea is completely preposterous. If it was a swinger's resort, everyone would know. And no-one would care.

But we have reasons to believe that paedophilia had nothing to do with what happened in the night ofMay 3 2007 in PdL.

Yeah - your reasons being that it doesn't accord with your lunatic theory

We would sum up our reasons into 3: nepiophilia, cover-up and implantation.

Of course you would. Go on then.

Nepiophilia

Before we say why we did call paedophilia a STINK BOMB let us first try to explain why we think it hasabsolutely nothing to do with Maddie’s case.

In fact we want to make it very clear that we think that no child present that week in PdLsufferedany harm, much less sexual molestation.

Paedophilia cannot be disregarded light-heartedly. Much less be discarded.

Oh get on with it, ffs.

We would like to believe that our readers trust that we have thought about it profoundly before coming to the conclusions to which we arrived.

Get. On. With. It.

Wikipedia has the following definition for paedophilia: “is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger. Nepiophilia (Infantophilia) is pedophilia, but is used to refer to a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (ages 0–3 or those under age 5).Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11-14 year oldpubescents.”

Although nepiophilia is paedophilia, we would divide this disgusting pathology into 3 categories:

Nepiophilia – ages 0–5;

Paedophilia – ages 6 –10;

Hebephilia – ages 11 –14.

Why have you divided it into categories of your own devising, when these terms are already clearly defined?I think the answer is obvious. You just adore tossing big words about and having your minions say ''Oh Textusa, you're so clever'' while you *blush* away in the backgroundSo lets press the reset button, shall we?A paedophile is someone with an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. Professionals, of which you are not one, may use other terminology to describe specific subsets of paedophiles, but there is nothing to be gained from you doing so, especially as you don't appear to have grasped what they mean.So shall we move on?

The younger the victim the more horrendous the crime is.

Really? Says who - you?I would say that the more horrendous the abuse, the more horrendous the crime. The horrendousness of the abuse depends upon what was done to the child, not upon how old they were.Are you really suggesting that a Paedophile is less of a Paedophile because his victims are six, rather than four years old? Or that the betrayal of trust is any less because the child was 10 when it began?Well, good luck having that discussion with any victim of sexual abuse

If for a hebephile the words “sick pervert”come to mind, for a paedophile, in this scale, the words “sadistic” and “cruel” must be added.

Why?Let's make this clear. Anyone with an abnormal sexual interest in children is a Paedophile. The crime occurs when an adult acts upon those impulses. You seem to draw a simple equation: the younger the child, the worse the crime.This is of course ridiculous. A victim does not suffer any the less because they were six at the time and not four. A nine year old girl is not less likely to suffer the life-long effects of abuse than a five year old.

Please speculate what words are applicable to a nepiophile because we can’t. Or won’t for the sake of own sanity.

There you go again - the same words that apply to any other paedophile

For Maddie to have died in a paedophile context it would mean that David Payne was a nepiophile and that Gerry and Kate McCann were accomplices to the heinous ordeal and horrific fate of their daughter.

It would also mean that the McCann family closed its ranks to protect a murderous nepiophile who isn’t even part of family.

Nepiophiles, or infant-rapists do not get sympathy from anyone.

You really are utterly ignorant.There is undoubtedly an inate revulsion when very small children are abused - they are small and defenceless and we are programmed to defend them, or at least most of us are. But what you are implying is that it isn't ''as bad'' if the child is a little older. That is absolute cobblers. It is always bad, it is always wrong.By stating ''Nepiophiles, or infant-rapists do not get sympathyfrom anyone'' you are implying that other paedophiles do!By saying it would mean that a family ''closed its ranks to protect a murderous nepiophile who isn’t even part of family'' you seem to be suggesting that it would be acceptable to cover for such a person if they WERE related.All of this suggests someone who really does not understand the issues at all and who harbors some very disturbing viewpoints

Not even from their own families, who unable to avoid the highest shame that is possible to bear, will do the best they can to separate themselves from that disgusting creature and are usually on the forefrontin condemning him publicly.

If infant-rapists understandably do not get any sympathy from their own families much less will they get any from the victim’s family.

It would be completely incomprehensible to expect a murderous infant-rapist to draw sympathy fromacquaintances or total strangers to him.

Apparently, according to those who believe that paedophilia is the reason for Maddie’s death and for thecover-up that is exactly what is happening: they believe that David Payne, to them a murderous infant-rapist, enjoys the sympathy from his family, from the whole family of the victim, Maddie, and from all those involved in the cover-up.

Okay, let's cut to the chase.There is no evidence that Madeleine was targeted or taken by a paedophile. Consequently, there is also no evidence to suggest that anyone covered up for such an act.This is essentially a game of ''Compare the Bollocks" isn't it?You attempt to gain credence for your lunatic ''swingers'' theory by saying it would be even more ridiculous to suppose those people would cover up for a paedophile.

Covering-up

The fact there’s a cover-up is for us the biggest indicator that paedophilia had nothing to do withMaddie’s death.

A cover up you claim exists because of an invisible table, a doodle, an adult swimming pool and a carrier bag that denounced it's owner.

It’s a known FACT that paedophiles have been protected in VHLCU by the Establishment. The most recent being Jimmy Savile.

Cyril Smith, MP, also a prolific sexual abuser of young boys, knew Savile.Smithwas protected by theEstablishment, in spite of Private Eye magazine reporting his behaviour in 1979, when he was still alive.

Indeed. And what does any of that have to do with this case?

Wasn’t it in the ancient Greek society that such phenomenon was not only accepted but public andencouraged?

Er, no. With your customary ignorance,you get that wrong too. I suggest you research this.

In modern days this is taken by the powerful as their peers little peccadilloes and so abizarre, if not even “quaint”, behaviour known by all.

Nonsense. In fact, cobblers.

John Hemming, MP, suspects that the Establishment is still inclined to protect people in high placed,evenin this kind of case.

No wonder many bloggers believe something similar has taken place in the McCann case. However, all known paedo-VHLCU, are about hebephiles, preying on victims ages 11 – 14.

'' I said a hip hop,Hippie to the hippie,The hip, hip a hop, and you don't stop, a rock it..........''

Oh look - an opportunity to use some big words.

Jimmy Saville was a hebephile (victims ages 11 – 14) and not a paedophile (victim ages 6 – 10). Much like Max Clifford, subject of our “Oh, Max!” post (06Dec2012) who was sentenced to eight years for his crimes. Hebephiles NOT paedophiles.

Just to reiterate, paedophiles are those with a sexual interest in pre-pubertal children. Subdividing into categories you do not understand is not particularly helpful.

Max Clifford was found guilty of a number of assaults. His youngest victim was 14, so he doesn't really fit into any of your boxes

The covering-up for paedophiles (victims ages 6 –10) is much rarer. It is circumscribed to a veryrestricted circle of trust.

Where do you get this from? Where is your evidence that the above statement is true? Considering you have made up your own definition of what constitutes a paedophile I should be surprised if you can.

In this case, the protectors are fully aware that it is a heinous crime but prefer to look the other way, for fear, favour and/or a very close friendship.

This is utter bollocks. The vast majority of child abusers are not protected by anyone and are usually shopped by the victim themselves or someone close to them

The paedophile’s activities are frowned upon, “internally” within the restricted circle of trust, but hisinability to control his sick urges is accepted as inevitable.

Total cobblers. Really totally utterly cobblers.

The biggest example of such a cover-up is the Catholic Church and is paying a heavy price for havingcovered-up this behaviour in the past.

And why? Because they were afraid of the disgrace it would bring upon them and their organisation.

To be part of a hebephile cover-up (victims ages 11 –14) is “acceptable” if the paedo is of “correct” social status but one has to have very strong reasons to allow oneself to be involved in a paedophile cover-up (victims ages 6 –10) regardless of the social status of the criminal.

Again, this is absolutely disgraceful. It basically states that people are prepared to cover up for paedophiles who abuse pre-pubertal children and that to be part of such a cover up is ''acceptable''I am going to comment at the end of the next section, as I think it needs to be read in its entirety

Any kind of paedophilia is not tolerated by society and generates harsh social stigmatisation but theyounger the victim the harsher that stigma is.

A good example of this is the Casa Pia case.

Carlos Cruz had an assitant called Carlos Mota. When Cruz was arrested in 2001, Mota became famous for saying “Se o Carlos Cruz é pedófilo, eu também sou” (translated, “If Carlos Cruz is a paedo, so am I”).

It turned out that Mota was indeed a paedophile accused of raping 2 girls, one 7 yrs old and the other of8.

While Carlos Cruz was a hebephile (a crime for which he was sentenced), Mota was a paedophile, accused of a crime so serious (meanwhile prescribed) that he felt he had no other choice but to flee the country.

Carlos Cruz faced, for more than 10 years, the courts for his crimes. In that time it was witnessed manycoming forward to support him. Much of the Portuguese Mainstream media made a significant effort todescredit the witnesses and evidence against Cruz.

Not one finger was lifted to help Mota. And Mota was a paedophile, not a nepiophile.

We know not of a single nepiophile cover-up (victims ages 0 – 5). Not a single one.

That would be covering up for an infant-rapist. A hebephile finds a peadophile absolutely disgusting. Anepiophile's acts are beyond known words to qualify its degree of repulsion.

As Maddie would have been a victim of a nepiophile, then every single person involved in the cover-up would be participating in cover-up of a murdering nepiophile, or to put it bluntly, a murdering infant-rapist.

The question is not whether a murdering infant-rapist would seek help to try cover up for hisignominious and repulsive crime (he might be stupid enough to try) but about who would be willing to take part in covering-up such hideous and dreadful crime.

Answer is no-one.

Not even close family.

A nepiophile’s acts are too horrific and repugnant.

No one would ever accept, for whatever reason, risk being in any way associated with such abhorrentand detestable acts.

So what possible secret could a murderous infant-rapist hold that would be so powerful and haveenough strength to force the British and Portuguese governments on their knees?

What secret that could hold information so sensitive that would drive 2 governments to hide the murder of a little girl at the hands of a nepiophile?

What sort of favours could even begin to compensate a dead raped toddler?

Cannot see any.

Not even when mustering all powers of imagination.

And we’re talking about just a urologist, David Payne.

Okay.Let's leave aside for a second that this individual has been neither charged or convicted of any offence of any nature whatsoeverBasically this is the gist of Textusa's wooly thinking1) Textusa does not understand the difference between someone with an abnormal sexual interest in children and someone who acts on those impulses to abuse a child.2) Textusa thinks the magnitude of an offence should be determined solely by the age of the victim and not the severity of the abuse, the number of times it happened, the betrayal of trust, the use of violence or other coercion or any other aggravating factors3) Textusa thinks families cover up for paedophiles unless the victims are infants4) Textusa thinks an individual who has an abnormal desire for a 12 year old is disgusted by another individual who has an abnormal desire for a 10 year old.5) Textusa thinks that people would cover up for a paedophile who abused a 6 year old but would draw the line at covering up for one who abuses a 5 year old. Hence her belief that none of the people in PdL would cover up for someone who abused Maddie. Under any circumstances.6) Textusa however thinks that every person in PdL would cover up for an individual who killed a 4 year old in a physical assault because it would blow their cover as swingers, and this includes those who had nothing to do with the swinging but happen to work in the area. She also believes that these many hundreds of people would never ever tell, even when offered lots of money.

So what should this tell you?It should tell you that Textusa really hasn't the faintest idea what she is talking about

Levels of Cover-up

But the strongest indicator is not the fact that there’s a VHLCU but that there are other levels of covering up in this case.

We assumed, at the beginning of the post, that we both agree that there’s a VHLCU.

Let’s first define what we perceive to be the different levels a cover-up may have:

1. Very High-Level Cover-Up (VHLCU): involving the full commitment of state infrastructures such asgovernments and judicial systems as well as the full commitment of Mainstream Media (MSM).

2. High-Level Cover-Up (HLCU): involving the full commitment of tabloid media and the sympathy ofstate infrastructures such as governments and judicial systems as well as the sympathy of MSM.Involvement of significant commercial corporations such as multinationals.

3. Medium-Level Cover-Up (HLCU): no involvement of state infrastructures, involvement of local press and sympathy from other media and the involvement of local structures, which in Maddie’s case, the Ocean Club would be an example.

4. Low-Level Cover-Up (LLCU): involvement of locals apparently independent from events, which inMaddie’s case, the ex-Pats would be example.

5. Very Low-Level Cover-Up (LLCU): involvement of participants, families of participants and thosevulnerable to direct pressure, which in Maddie’s case, the Ocean Club workers would be an example.

''I said a hip hop,Hippie to the hippie,The hip, hip a hop, and you don't stop, a rock it''

We think it’s safe to say that you and we both agree that in Maddie’s case we are in the presence of both a VHLCU and a HLCU.

Okay, let's stop there for a second.Presumably, Textusa, one must agree that in order for a ''cover-up'' to be taking place, the people perpetrating the cover-up know what it is they are covering up? Otherwise, how could they participate?In which case, according to your little chart, about 50% of the populations of both countries already know what happened to Maddie. Assuming a bit of pillow talk happens, it's probably more like 75%

Where our blog differs from all others, and maybe from you and all those genuine White Hats (WH)who seek the truth as to what happened with Maddie but happen to disagree with us, is that we state clearly that in our opinion there are also MLCU, LLCU and VLLCU present.

Check it out, I'm the C-A-S-A, the N-O-V-A,And the rest is F-L-Y,You see I go by the code of the doctor of the mix,And these reasons I'll tell you why

In other words we say that the Ocean Club, ex-Pats and Ocean Club workers are also involved in thecover-up.

Oh yes, they are all involved. They got a note under the door on the morning of the 4th May 2007 saying ''You will participate in this mahoosive cover up or we will keep your non-refundable deposit. Have a nice day''And they stuck rigidly to this, even when there was a similarly mahoosive reward on offer.

The guests, who we also say are involved, fall under the categories of VHLCU and HLCU.

We don’t say this from the top of our heads.

We never thought you did, We assumed it came out of a completely different organ

We have demonstrated why we believe that the Ocean Club is involved by the inconsistencies about thedinners that it has confirmed it reserved for the T9 at the Tapas Bar for 5 nights in a row.

There are no inconsistencies. Also, just a small point, but if Maddy's death happened in the way you described, with no pre-meditation, what's with the plotting for days before?

A meal that was supposed to have taken place at a table that all documentaries and news reports have been unable to replicate.

No, Brunt was filmed sitting at the table. YOU claimed that it was photoshopped by Sky

A table, the BRT, We have demonstrated why we believe beyond doubt that it didn’t exist:

Yes. Because you are quite, quite mad.

That's right, folks. It's the table that never existed.

We have demonstrated why we believe that the Ocean Club is involved by it having handed over to the PJa series of papers, under the designation of “Tapas Reservation Sheets” which are absolutelymeaningless besides being a frustrated attempt to prove that the Tapas dinners took place.

Er no, it is a copy of the dinner reservations as echoed in testimonies from workers and guests

The fact that those “Tapas Reservation Sheets” are phoney makes all guests whose names are on them to be involved in the cover-up.

They are not phony. The claim that they are phony emanates from you

The fact that the there was no BRT and so no T9 Tapas dinners, proves that those who state seeing the group sitting around a big round table are lying, namely the Quiz Mistress and Jez Wilkins.

So all the evidence is that the group dined at the Tapas each night, as did other guests at the Ocean club, many of whom have testified to this. But you insist they are all lying because you do not believe a restaurant you have never been to did not have a table big enough to accommodate such a group. And despite the fact that there is a photo of it above and film of Brunt sitting at it, you continue to insist it doesn't exist.Get some therapy

The Quiz Mistress who hosts, twice a week, a very popular British contest that only she remembers.

No, plenty of others remembered it too

We have shown how Mrs Fenn’s “Maddie’s crying episode” is more than questionable.

No you haven't.

We have demonstrated why we believe that the invention of Pimpleman, a pivotal character in 2009whose use has been outlasted by the Black Hats (BH) themselves. He was materialised by Derek Flack,TS (a minor who is NOT responsible for the lies she was told to tell) and JW in stories which we showedhad more holes in them than a Swiss cheese.

So an elderly ex-pat and a young girl see a similar character and you claim they are also in cahoots with this big group of guests - all to cover up swinging by some people they didn't know in a holiday facility they were not connected with. And you are sticking with that utter lunacy are you?

We have shown how the Tapas staff were conveniently singing from the same hymn sheet less than 24 hours after Madeleine disappeared.

Ever think that was because it happened and they all witnessed it? No, of course not

It’s this melting pot that crosses all statuses and professions involving guests, Ocean Club management, Ocean Club workers and ex-Pats that rules out, in our opinion, paedophilia, or to be more precise, nepiophilia, in Maddie's case.

Okay - this brings us to the crux of the matter.

Whatever could possibly motivate these people in covering-up for a murderous infant-rapist?

Absolutely nothing.

The fact that there a not only VHLCU and HLCU but also MLCU, LLCU and VLLCU, indicate, to us, thatnepiophilia is in no way related with Maddie’s death.

Check it out, I'm the C-A-S-A, the N-O-V-A,And the rest is F-L-Y,You see I go by the code of the doctor of the mix,And these reasons I'll tell you why

No way would so many people let themselves be involved in protecting a murderous-infant rapist.

There’s no secret big enough or powerful enough to enable that.

Okay, let's stop there for a moment.So what you are saying is that before these people would agree to participate in a cover up they would have to know what they were covering up?Well clearly you must be. You have stated that there is no way people would let themselves be involved in protecting, as you put it, a ''murderous infant rapist''. So they must have been told what they were being asked to cover up, to use your, and I use this term advisedly, logic.So what you are also saying is that they might have covered up for a paedophile who targeted slightly older children - 6 years old, for example - but not for one who targeted a four year old. Because they are worse in Textusaland. That is basically what you are saying, isn't it?You are also saying that they were happy to cover up instead for a grown man who hit a four year old so hard he killed her - because that is your scenario.So in your twisted little mind this enormous group of people, who have themselves committed no crime, all agreed, with no dissenters, to commit an appalling crime in order to protect a man they didn't know, but who had caused the violent death of a young child because at least he didn't sexually abuse her. And they did so because they didn't want word getting out that they were swingers.Have I left anything out?

To summarise, then, in Textusaworld there are many hundreds of people who were there that week who know precisely what happened to Madeleine and by whose hand. Many hundreds, some of them poorly paid seasonal workers, who all shunned the huge reward rather than dob in a few tourists who couldn't keep it in their trousers.Let's hope they got a decent tip.

Implantation

I am going to edit out some of this next bit as her casual approach to accusing someone who can't defend himself is pretty nauseating

Statistics dictate that there may have been some paedos at the time in PdL.

However, swinging is a factor against those statistics as swingers abhor violence and enjoy adult pleasure while paedos enjoy inflicting suffering and are sexually stimulated by minors.

More bullshit. The vast majority of Paedophiles identify as heterosexual males, usually married or in permanent relationships. Although they certainly inflict suffering there is no evidence to suggest that this is a motivating factor

It could be said that statistically it would be less likely to find paedos in a swinger group than in any other.

It could. And it would be completely wrong. See above

But what we’re certain of is that Maddie’s demise had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of paedophile molestation.

Nonsense. You cannot possibly know that I have deleted another section here as it's cobblers and goes into other areas I haven't time to deal with but I am leaving in the next bit, as the dozy dingbat suggests it's a reason to suspect David Payne

4. The fact that David Payne uses the expression of “little angels dressed in white” to describe theMcCann children during his visit to the apartment 5A on May3, early evening.

Hang on - are you suggesting that anyone who looks at a group of kids and says ''ah, don't they look like angels?'' is a paedophile?He was asked what they were wearing and what the situation was. He described it. Must you try to read something into every utterance, every tiny tiny event in every day? It's totally fucking nuts.

These are the 4 things we say have been used to implant in the general public's mind the idea that David Payne is a paedo. And if he killed Maddie, a nepiophile, a murderous infant-rapist.

Yes, Textusa, you can put the thesaurus away. We've all seen the big word, Well done, come and get a gold star later

Those who believe neglect and/or paedophilia have to realise they have been led there by skilled BHs.

Skilled BHs?Like the PJ, for example?This really does make me laugh. It's common ground the nutbag shares with the Harlow Halfwit and other fucktards associated with this case. Claim that anyone who thinks they neglected the children is a Baddie, a ''Black Hat'' for fuck's sake. Much more exciting to throw in some big secret and claim the neglect is an 'alibi'

Many believers are genuine WHs. People who genuinely seek the truth. People who genuinely want to know exactly what happened with no other agenda but that.

We repeatedly denounce those who have planted STINK BOMBS. These are planted by some and picked up as genuine by others.

We criticise fiercely those who plant them but have never criticised those we see genuinely believing in them.

In other words, you detest people pointing out the truth, lest they persuade others of it

We have always tried to tread a careful path in order not to alienate the genuine. To believe is not to bestupid but only to be victims of expert manipulators who know very well the tools of their trade.

Ha ha - massive irony klaxon. Textusa, you are the greatest manipulator since some Greek bint offered Jason a spectacular blowjob if he returned with a Golden Fleece

We will address Yvonne Martin’s (#1) and the Gaspar’s (#2) statements in separate posts.

Deep joy

Ground penetrating radar showed an enormous disturbance in the earth, but subsequent excavation revealed it to be nothing more than Textusa's tattered credibility. And some pants of ganga.

4 comments:

I'm a little confused ... so the swinging can also include husbands acting as a pimp for their wives and if the wife is not happy with his choice, rape is a possible consequence? '(see Big Book Ref below)

Does that go with the happy swinging theory so familiar to us all now?

Would it not have been better for all these activities to take place whilst the children were safely in the creche? Surely the whole point of the swinging holiday would be that no toddlers would be wandering into the bedroom?

It's just not safe to give Textusa access to a dictionary - as she already has the Big Book for Holiday Swingers - with diagrams and pictures and everything, Including advice on 'What to do in an Emergency..!Published by : (actually nottextusa might fill that in...)

There are times when her posts provide an unwelcome glimpse into her private life and her moral compass, where 'consent' to sleep with his woman of choice is obtained from her husband, and if she doesn't like it he gets nasty about it.